Text Size

House members are complaining that their spouses could lose their jobs, their family incomes could drop and, perhaps, the entire pattern of their family lives could change if an ethics reform bill just passed by the House becomes law.

The bill would bar campaigns from employing a lawmaker's spouse. Its backers argue that employing a spouse creates an implicit conflict of interest, tempting lawmakers to overpay and tipping off contributors that some of their largesse will go directly to the lawmaker's family.

But what seems an obvious conflict to some is a way of life to others.

Rhonda Rohrabacher has 3-year-old triplets and a work-at-home job as campaign manager to her husband, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.).

She made $57,000 in the 2006 election cycle, according to a recent report by the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Under the proposed ban, Rhonda Rohrabacher would be out of a job.

"It's gonna hurt me," Rep. Rohrabacher said. "My family would be deprived of that income. I think it's baloney. I think it's just a way of not having to look at issues by making it a personal matter."

Unlike other ethics reforms, which prohibit lobbyists from buying meals for lawmakers or curtail congressional travel, the spouse proposal strikes an intimate blow to a handful of legislators.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) paid his wife, Patricia, $110,000 in the last election cycle to do fundraising and prepare campaign finance reports, according to CREW.

He found the new reform proposal so alarming that he sought out one of the bill's original sponsors, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), to personally voice his opposition.

"It would definitely cause me some problems, probably financial problems," McKeon said. "And if I had to bring in someone else to do the same work, I wouldn't have that same kind of trust."

McKeon, like other rank-and-file lawmakers, is paid a federal salary of $165,200 a year.

Castle said he understood that the proposal was more sensitive than others and that it could alter the personal lives of some members, but he still felt compelled to back it.

"I don't expect that something nefarious is going on with a lot of members, or even with any of the members," Castle said. But "we've had a lot of problems here with members from Mr. [Randy 'Duke'] Cunningham to Mr. [Bob] Ney, and I think we have a public responsibility to avoid conflicts."

Castle is especially concerned about spouses who serve as fundraisers on commission, earning a percentage of each contribution.

In such arrangements, contributors would know that a portion of their donation would go directly to the Congress member's family, a situation ripe for abuse, he said.

Congress has enacted a series of reforms this year to respond to a string of lobbying and ethics scandals. Although the ban on spousal employment passed the House Monday, it has yet to gain traction in the Senate.

Many more members contract companies that employ their spouses. In all, CREW identified 64 members of Congress who paid their family members, either directly or indirectly, through their campaigns or political action committees.

The ban on spousal employment would not affect employment of other family members. But it would require new disclosure of those situations. The bill was introduced by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).

Barton's wife, Terri, was paid $57,000 by her husband's campaign in the last election cycle, according to CREW. Her primary responsibility was producing a campaign newsletter, The Barton Backer, the congressman said.

She also "goes to the Republican women's club and some of the ribbon cuttings I can't go to," he said.

The Bartons have a son, Jack, nearing 2 years of age.

"I categorically reject that we ought to ban spouses from working for your campaign," Barton said. "I'm not apologetic. She does real work and puts out a good product. I'm tired of us acting like there's something we should be ashamed of -- I'm not."

Barton said the proposed ban would be burdensome to his family.

"Terri would have to stop working altogether or volunteer, or find a job outside the home that pays for the day care," he said.

Barton likened his campaign to a family-owned business and praised family workers for being trustworthy and enthusiastic.

He did, however, offer a note of caution with family employment: "The only problem is if you have a worker who doesn't want to do something. How do you discipline the worker? You may end up on the couch."

Readers' Comments (33)

If these were Democrats doing this,the bill would never see the light of day.Just another partisan attack bill.You have billions of dollars being spent to pay back lobbyists donations and that's where the etnics laws and probes need to be.The dems earmark machine makes the GOP in their day look like choir boys.

How much work paid by the taxpayers do you think actually gets done by the mother of baby triplets? It's a full-time job and then some. I like Rohrabacher but what made him think voters put his whole family into office?

Politico picks Rohrbacher, a Repulican for their lead story and totally ignores the King of Korruption.

Harry Reid. Harry Reid has four kids on the lobbying payroll. You want something - hire Harry Reids Kids - they will give Dad a call and sure enough the goody bag will deliver.

He can get endangered species moved if the endangered rats affect property sorta in his name. He can get power corridors moved if their to close to his property. Harry Reid can get bridges built between Nevada and Arizona that just happens to require a highway adjacent to some undeveloped land he has.

Of courxe, this is all coincidence.

Politico, also ignored The Great American Hero, John Murtha, who can get earmarks passed in return for votes.

Don't cross this fearless leader of Pork and Earmarks is the word in the House.

My heart bleeds for Rohrbacher, Barton and the others. I wonder if Rohrbacher favors increasing unemployment payments if triplets are born to an out of work woman? I wonder how many non-spouses Barton pays $57,000 to produce a newsletter and attend ribbon cuttings?

Politico picks Rohrbacher, a Repulican for their lead story and totally ignores the King of Korruption.

Harry Reid. Harry Reid has four kids on the lobbying payroll. You want something - hire Harry Reids Kids - they will give Dad a call and sure enough the goody bag will deliver.

He can get endangered species moved if the endangered rats affect property sorta in his name. He can get power corridors moved if their to close to his property. Harry Reid can get bridges built between Nevada and Arizona that just happens to require a highway adjacent to some undeveloped land he has.

Of courxe, this is all coincidence.

Politico, also ignored The Great American Hero, John Murtha, who can get earmarks passed in return for votes.

Don't cross this fearless leader of Pork and Earmarks is the word in the House.

This bill is a positive thing and it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. The fact is that this bill is the needle in the haystack of corruption! The big, big cruncher is family members working for the lobbying industry while the politician is serving their term. Next is the fact that over 50% of congress goes to work immediately in the lobbying industry after they leave office has to stop NOW! There has to be a time limit or something to curb this practice that is ripe with corruption! As usual this is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the swamp of corruption is getting bigger and bigger under the Democrats leadership. Nancy Pelousy said Democrats would drain the swamp and then her son takes a high paying part time lobbying position (he was able to keep his full time job)with a company under investigation for corrupt business practices. Gee I wonder how that investigation's going Nancy?

why not look at the issue instead of dividing along party lines? Can we all agree that this is a conflict of interest in all cases, and wives of elected officials can, oh, I don't know, go out and find a nice job like the rest of us? That would be fair, yes?

Clearly, the politicos within the beltway will NOT in anyway do anything to limit their personal income or that of their family members. These public servants, over the years, have positioned themselves to use their position to become wealthy. Can you think of any senator or representative who departed the congress with less money/assets than he or she had on the day they took federal office. (Note I'm not including those dedicated members of the congress convicted of a crime or those who could see the writing on the wall and elected to retire prior to being exposed or charged.) Politicians are masters at milking the system, for personal gain, and I doubt they will ever enact any law which would restrict their path to raiding the treasury. They may enact a law. However, I'd bet, you can be sure it will have significant loopholes which will allow them to enrich themselves their wives/children and contributing friends. If you doubt me look at what the congress promised to do concerning "EARMARKS" and what they've accomplished.

"Terri would have to stop working altogether or volunteer, or get a job outside the home and then we would have to pay for childcare." What a disconnected arrogant public puke. This is the mentality of these, not all people who believe that they have not only the right to spend taxpayer dollars to the special interest groups who funnel money for the right vote, but they believe it is ok to pay the spouse a tidy sum to keep it in the family. I am not talking Repub or Dem here. These people have to be stopped, it is not enough to vote, they have to be stopped and we the people have to start demanding our Government officials be held accountable to us. We as a country of citizens have to put some of our political party differences aside for awhile and demand that these people adhere to ethical values. They can not be trusted to do it in house. I hope to see the day when we as a nation send a message to the political whores that they have to fix the problem or we will. I wish I had the power to vote out every person in office and start fresh. The parties are killing this country, party politics has got to become less important than good and honest governance.

Yea. If I only made over $100,000.00 a year it sure would put a huge dent in my wallet to lose 57 grand. PLEASE....how many of us that live in reality have a spouse that makes 57 grand a year working from home? How long did she actually work? How many months? Sure would like to know what that equals out to an hour.

The Special Exception-find a few good players to destroy a great plan to clean-up corruption in Washington. If they are worth what they are being paid-have an ally hire your spouse and you hire the person they are replacing. Otherwise-these people need to be public SERVENTS. O, no-how are we ever going to live on only $110,000 a year!!!

No problem, fix the old fashioned way; spouse swap. Find a buddy who's running for office this year and just swap spouses for the daywork of the campaign fundraising or whatever. I'll pay your spouse to work for me and you pay my spouse to work for you.

This practice is no different than Feinstein directing contracts to her husband's company...its a clear conflict of interest to gain personally from public service, no matter how you do it.

that rancid bitch sent her husband's company over a billion dollars worth of government business and the corrupt, lying MSM covers it up. Of course, it's our useless DOJ that refuses to investigate her crimes as well as hypocrite harry reid's crimes.

O, no-how are we ever going to live on only $110,000 a year!!! They won't have to - the base pay is $165,200 for each member of Congress, losing (in the one case) your sposes $57,000/year income would drop their before-taxes income from $222,200 to merely $165,200/year... Think through the one congressman's complaint - if his wife couldn't work for his campaign, she'd have to find and pay for childcare - why doesn't he take a page from Rep. Conyers and simply tell his staffers to "watch the kids"? Who si watching the kids while she works now - she does? So is this a part-time, as you find time part-time job? Sounds like a sweet deal to me ;^)